A Pitfall in the Evaluation of Gene Perturbation Models
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University of Luxembourg, 2 Av. de l’Universite, 4365 Belval Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
Abstract
Gene perturbation models aim to predict transcriptional responses to unseen genetic interventions, but comparisons rely on heterogeneous evaluation metrics and differentially-expressed (DE) gene subsets. We investigate the consequences of these choices using eight methods across six single-gene perturbation datasets under a unified evaluation protocol. Varying the number of top DE genes reveals substantial instability in Precision-based rankings, with the winning method changing of the time, while rankings based on the rest of the metrics remain comparatively stable. Investigating this discrepancy exposes that repeating a single predicted expression profile across cell-level rows, a standard practice for many methods, can inflate significance estimates and produce excessively large predicted significant-DE sets. Specifically we found that of tested perturbation--gene pairs pass the significance threshold despite some of them having minuscule effects. We derive an inflation factor showing that replicated predictions can amplify the standardized Mann--Whitney statistic even after correction for tied ranks, without adding independent information. This artifact changes Precision mainly as the number of DE genes increases because for smaller cutoffs, most of the genes are already significant due to the effect-based ordering. Taking this pitfall into account in our benchmark comparison, we find that a random forest using Gene Ontology features achieves the best overall results.
Figures & tables
| Method | Representation | Predictor | Prior | Pretrained |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bilinear | Low-dimensional factors | Bilinear regression | None | No |
| RF-GO | GO-derived gene features | Random forest | GO | No |
| Ridge-scf | scFoundation embeddings | Ridge regression | None explicit | Yes |
| RF-scf | scFoundation embeddings | Random forest | None explicit | Yes |
| GEARS | GO node embeddings | GNN | GO | No |
| LPM | Perturbation embeddings | NN | None explicit | No |
| Cells per perturbation | Cell counts | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset | Perturbations | Mean | Median | Perturbed | Control | Genes |
| Jurkat ( Nadig et al., 2025 ) | 2,393 | 104.9 | 83.0 | 250,943 | 12,013 | 8,882 |
| RPE1 ( Replogle et al., 2022 ) | 2,393 | 98.8 | 72.0 | 236,429 | 11,485 | 8,749 |
| HepG2 ( Nadig et al., 2025 ) | 2,393 | 58.7 | 45.0 | 140,497 | 4,976 | 9,624 |
| K562 ( Replogle et al., 2022 ) | 2,057 | 145.7 | 121.0 | 299,694 | 10,691 | 8,563 |
| VCC ( Youngblut et al., 2025 ) | 150 | 1,220.6 | 1,045.0 | 183,097 | 38,176 | 18,080 |
| MSE | Pearson | Precision | Overlap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bilinear | 14.31 | 47.70 | 6.15 | 6.09 |
| LPM | 25.14 | 26.70 | 4.21 | 4.42 |
| Ridge-scf | 12.32 | 45.96 | 6.06 | 6.37 |
| GEARS | 16.53 | 45.21 | 6.29 | 6.33 |
| AVG Ctrl | 14.59 | 33.23 | 4.15 | 4.69 |
| AVG Train | 12.40 | 48.92 | 6.15 | 6.65 |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Single-Cell Perturbation Modeling
Single-cell perturbation modeling predicts how genetic or chemical interventions change cellular states across cells and contexts.
See all 61 papers